Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Tuesday 2-12

I've alerted the website guys to expect a huge amount of traffic to 1490wosh.com today--as I will once again be commenting on education. Such Two Cents features are usually met by many kudos from taxpayers and much scorn from educators--who seem to enjoy posting lengthy blog responses with study results and test numbers supporting their arguments. But the internet is a big universe and can handle a few more keystrokes.

Two local districts are now applying for waivers from the state to stay in the SAGE program--but to have more kids in the classroom than required by the program rules. The Appleton School District held a public hearing on waiver last night--and a waiver appears on tomorrow's Oshkosh School Board agenda. My question is: if the benefits of having just 15-kids per teacher is so important--why are these districts asking to go above the limit?

One of my suggestions for school savings last week was to dump the SAGE program altogether. I pointed out that the money given to districts by the state doesn't cover the expense of the program. That was met by the aforementioned long blog responses from teachers who basically told me I was an idiot and that it's nearly impossible now to teach more than that many kids at one time--and maybe I should keep my thoughts on education to myself from now on. Well, apparently some of the administrators in Appleton and Oshkosh think 15 isn't such a magic number after all. I fully expect all of the teachers who posted responses to my original blog to be at the Board meetings demanding more teachers and less waivers.

My biggest beef is with the "false advertising" perpetrated by SAGE districts. Those requesting waivers are taking taxpayer dollars to limit class sizes--but then aren't playing by the rules. If fifteen is the rule, then fifteen should be the limit. Or if 18 is okay--a number currently being used in the Appleton District--then let's make the SAGE limit 18. I'm guessing there are a few other districts around the state that could benefit from raising the numbers--and I doubt the impact on the kids will be that great.

45 comments:

One really has to wonder how much of this SAGE issue has to deal with the students or the teachers.I for one believe the teachers union is extraordinarily strong and vital. This union and their members will do whatever they must to promote more teachers and more teacher benefits. If teacher compensation was somehow removed from the SAGE scenario, I'm fairly certain the teachers and the union would be far less inclined to be supportive.

SAGE in Oshkosh, and apparently Appleton, is about using State money to the fullest extent possible. It focuses extra attention and resources (more teachers) on students with a lower socio-economic status. OASD is simply trying to milk the state for all they can and implement SAGE to the fullest degree possible. There are some at the State level beginning to question SAGE and it's effectiveness and I am concerned that someday they will stop Oshkosh from pulling the wool over their eyes and we will be left holding the bag.

I'm 50. When I was growing up, we had 25-30 in a classroom. It worked well. But of course, that was back in the day when teachers had respect from their students, and the ability to enforce discipline, without parents whining about their precious babies and threatening to sue the district. Parents took responsibility for their children, and a note home from the teacher was enough to ensure that we wouldn't see the light of day for awhile. While I realize that so many things have changed over the years, this basic principle has not. Parents now bring kids into the world, but don't take the time to teach them what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Going back to basics would go a LONG way in saving money in every district.

Yes, teachers unions across the country are so strong and so powerful that they stopped the passage of the idiotic legislation that was NCLB and have propelled teachers into the most highly paid professionals among those with similar degrees.

Oh, wait, they didn't do that, did they?

SAGE is about giving attention to those students that, do to poverty, do not, statistically, have the same opportunities given to them at home. I think it is crap that a district be able to increase the numbers, but that doesn't mean that the program is not helping those students in it.

I think it is crap to claim that poverty means kids are stupid. They may not have the "same" opportunities, but that does not mean that poor kids do not have ANY opportunities. Even Eichstaedt was recorded on youtube as saying that class size makes no statistical difference, it is what the teacher does with the students that matters. I think his opinion is far more knowledgeable and experienced about what statistics say.

Please try to read more than one study or book before touting your expertise.

Teachers are human. They worry about losing their jobs just like paper mill workers.To become more efficient often means eliminating layers and duplication.I think in order to gain any type of savings within the Oshkosh School District, the entire pool of staff needs to be evaluated and where duplication is identified, or where cuts can be made, they should. Teachers should not be insulated from downsizing if that is what is called for to achieve cost reductions.

I realize that to some degree smaller student to teacher ratios is a good thing. I can justify with what I know a class of 18 to 1. I cannot justify 10, 11, 12, 13 to one that the BOE discussed tonight.

I also agree with Monte's temporary reduction of contracts. I don't think the person with the one year contract cares how flexible the plan is when they get bumped because someone else had a two year contract. She didn't say forever, just until the plan is settled and a timeline is in place. That seems fair to all that way. She didn't say anyone is abd or anyone is greedy, just to think ahead.

I can't believe McDermott voted for the contracts after getting those signatures from the people he now gave two year contracts to. So much for credibility of some BOE members. Anyone remember the letter to the letter from one of the teachers unions that said we scratched you back to get you elected, MCDERMOTT, BOWEN, WEINSHEIM, and KAVANAUGH, now you scratch our backs on our contracts. What a racket.

7:25 you hit the nail on the head!It all sux! The corporations are out to line there pockets at the expense of the average middleclass american and the unions don't give a crap about the taxpayers who are middleclass americans because they pay taxes and those taxes pay wages and bennies for union city workers and teachers. If your not rich or a union member right now in this country your taking one up the butt. The whole system is corrupt and has got to change!

Monte is making a mountain out of a molehill with her ridiculous rhetoric that McDermott shouldn't vote on admin contracts because some admin signed his papers. A, there's nothing illegal or improper about it and B, if she's in doubt about that she needs to contact the state elections board just as quickly as her finger will let her dial. If she was half the "candidate who does her homework" she claims to be she would have looked into the matter before opening her mouth. But in her usual "shoot first and ask questions later just to stir up controversy where none should exist" manner she throws a grenade in a war-free zone, looks away then wonders how damage occurred. She can't win on her own merits and doesn't have the courage to try, so she use everything in her power to mow her opponents over, hoping for a victory when one falls. What a tool she is.

She was even more reckless with her claim that McDermott got those signatures during the workday. Where does she get off slandering people like that? And she wonders why people don't like her. Gee whiz, she's a dope. To his credit, Mc Dermott ignored her just as the voters will do. Oh she may survive the primary, it's not too hard but in the general election, she's going down just as she has every year.

We don't need a loose cannon on the school board, especially one with an equally loose mouth to boot and voters know that.

Be careful what you wish for anonymous, in both the election and the super's job. It's nice to see Michelle "Mountain out of a Molehill" Monte gets your vote. She'll need it. Maybe you can help her make sure she doesn't keep inserting foot in her big mouth, especially making accusations that are slanderous and she cannot prove. We're in MAJOR trouble if she gets elected.

Actually Anonymous 8:18, I can prove what you are calling an accusation. My information came from someone who was present at district offices, during the work day. I'd be happy to give you that person's number should you care to discuss the matter without making false accusations of slander.

You are correct that Mr. McDermott's actions were not illegal. However, his actions were highly unethical. The reason I feel the way I do is that, not only did he collect signatures during the working day, my source also stated that Karen Bowen did the same for Mr. Jahnke, he essentially solicited his employees signatures and last night voted to approve their contracts, some for two years. I feel that act places employees of our district in an uncomfortable position. Could someone say no to their boss with their job hanging out there knowing cuts are coming with the new plan? This is a conflict of interest considering he is also on the OEA negotiating committee who has yet to announce their candidate endorsements while contract negotiations are ongoing.

I am not questioning whether or not Mr. McDermott can retain objectivity. I am concerned with an unethical act and the public perception of a conflict of interest. As a community member, I have the right to voice my concern. Mr. McDermott did not deny the "accusation" as you put it. He obviously felt otherwise because he voted on the contracts of people he solicited signatures.

My main concern is the lack of credibility of the current BOE and the potential for adding to that, or in this case taking away further what little is left. That is my right as a community member. While I welcome disagreement and respect your right to do so, I caution you about throwing the term "slander" around unless you are trying to give an example of the definition in your post.

Give me a break, Mrs. Monte. There's nothing wrong with getting signatures during the workday. Even you admit that yet you made sure to mention it last night. If you were concerend with integrity and ethics, why not just address that issue and leave the time of day out of it? If you want voters to believe you're concerned about ethics and integrity, try practicing some yourself.

As for people being intimidated into signing papers for their "boss" just because their "boss" is asking, it wouldn't matter what time of day they were asked. If someone signed his papers and were not willing to support him, they're as disingenuous as you. The nomination papers state signators intend to support the candidate they're signing for. If you really think a candidate is going to vote to can someone just because they wouldn't sign his papers, you're more of a conspiracy theorist than we imagined.

As for your "source," it's unlikely you have a mole in the administration office (unless it's the one whose molehills you're building mountains out of). You have also made past claims that someone was "snooping" around in offices after the workday and during school board meetings. That was a lie too. But if these things are true and you are so concerned about all them, don't be such a coward and start naming your sources or enourage them to come forward themselves. Instead you resort to your ingrained behavior of throwing around the names of those you wish to bash. Stop protecting those who claim to have the proof of things you're outraged about. Otherwise your ongoing blather means nothing and it's going to be viewed as nothing more than negative campaign rhetoric from an angry, negative candidate who can't win on her own merits so wants to destroy her opponents by pointing out things about them. And with no conscience of whether it's true or false.

426-9617. I'm pretty sure he will be awaiting your call tomorrow after 6pm. Had Mr. McDermott refuted my "Slanderous" claim, he would have spoken in front of the Board on television last night as to what he saw. Mr. McDermott did not refute, therefore there was no need to prove anything.

Looking at my posts, comments, and speeches, I think the title of negative goes to you above most, but not all. Clearly we disagree on what is ethical. Such is life. Have a pleasant evening and stay warm.

Floating the phone number of your supporter and school board member Dan Becker hardly restores any confidence. In fact it only sends up more red flags. It also says you can't get anyone in the admin office to support your accusations besides someone who circulated nomination papers for you. Thanks!

You still didn't address any of the points made or answer the the question of why bother making the workday reference since there's nothing illegal about it. I'll take that to mean you hae no answers. Your motives are so obvious. You're a school board member wannabe who'll never be anything more than a candidate. Happy campaigning. You should be a pro by now but still have much to learn.

Sounds to me like Dan Becker asked some administrators to sign Michelle's papers and they told him "no" I've already signed for two candidates... maybe that is why Michelle is in such a snit. I have heard that some people flat out told her they would not sign her nominations papers that they didn't believe she was good for our district. I concur.

I find it hard to believe that getting 100 signatures could even remotely be a difficult thing.

When a candidate gets thousands of votes at the polls, I don't think that getting 100 signatures for nomination is a real challenge.

Both of you are looking for Monte to lose her cool. I think that she is smarter than that and will not take your bait. Get a life, call the number and verify the source, (oh yeah, you can't because of caller id) and actually read her post. She explains her motives clearly (twice).

Likewise the Monte cronies should stick to her worthless rag. Especially since thye think so little of this one.

Oh and BTW Caller ID has nothing to do with anything. Ever heard of *67? Point is I wouldn't trust what Dan Becker says anymore than I'd trust what a Monte says. They have their own agenda and are hoping to pass it with an axe to grind. Lotsa luck!

From where I sit, Tom McDermott did nothing wrong. I would be willing to bet that if Mrs. Monte could get signatures from people in the administration building, she would. But she can't because they have no respect and don't like her. If she claims otherwise, then where are their signatures. This is nothing more than a case of sour grapes on her part, and probably Dan Becker's too.

I too have heard from at least 2 people who were asked to sign her papers last year and they flat out told her they would not sign for her.

In the grand scheme of things, McDermott violated no laws and Michelle Monte and Dan Becker are playing gotcha politics trying to make a case out of something that the state elections board doesn't believe is a problem. If they think otherwise they should work to change the election laws. That must be too much effort. They're rather fire little grenades and hope they do maximum damage. Never gonna happen.

Well, if it is fair for one to have to name names, who refused to sign Monte's papers. I'm just dying from curiosity.

Sure seems like the slings and arrows are only coming from one direction and it isn't from Monte it is from the brave and curageous anonymous towards Monte who has had the class to not take the sour bait from the classless.

Nice job bringing up a city council candidate. Didja run out of bad things to say about Mrs. Monte? I'm glad to see the negative campaigning is NOT coming from the Monte camp. Too bad the noncandidate, I lost because my hubby's a teacher, still thinks she has influence. Yeah, and Santa is real and so is the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy.

I think those who oppose Monte should be shaking in their garters right now considering their mouth piece and poster boy has been planning a cut and run for some time now. Apparently he sees that tides are turning and he won't have the majority he does now. Not as dumb as I thought he was.

Monte will NEVER get enough votes to get elected. But dream on. As for Heilman, those who think he's running can't read. He made it perfectly clear he'd see the district through the current plan. Who wouldn't want to leave considering the negative, destructive forces called Schneider, Monte, Becker? Some people actually can see the forest for the trees. Maybe someday these 3 will be among them. Hope springs eternal.

What an ugly, vicious little person anonymous 3:52 is. Sounds much like some of our candidates and their friends. They deserve pity and a NO vote at the ballot box Tuesday. But given the choices Monte the Mole lover will have enough votes to move on. But that's where she'll end. Thank the Lord.

Schneider seems to have his act together. He wants to hold the Superintendent accountable and keep taxes down by providing funding for students, no just increased benefits and salarys to teachers and administrators. This is all good stuff!

Wonder if you'll be singing the same tune if Schneider gets his chance to take the teachers to arbitration and loses not only the case but a whole bunch of district money too. He is too arrogant to know when he is wrong.

Sorry but you can challenge things without being a jerk about it. That's precisely why Schneider and Monte WILL NOT have my vote. They lack class and diplomacy and have proven they can't/won't work with others. schneider voted against a plan he helped create just because it was tweaked to make the numbers work. Monte quit the CRT committee because things weren't going her way. We don't need prima donnas, quitters, or naysayers on the BOE.

Tis a long way til April. What's thact expression about not counting your chickens before they're hatched. Methinks that would be good advice for the Monte group. Come April it's going to be McDermott and Schneider just as it is now.